From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 19, 1998
706 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Summary

holding that record was devoid of any evidence that patient's treatment team deemed necessary or delegated to the patient's psychiatrist the treatment decision

Summary of this case from Louisma v. State

Opinion

Case No. 97-1107.

Opinion filed February 19, 1998.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County. Kenneth Hosford, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Chattahoochee, for Appellee.


Earnest Hills (Hills), a resident of the state psychiatric hospital, appeals an emergency treatment order. We reverse.

Hills resides on the forensic unit of the state hospital. (Hills is charged with the first-degree murder of his wife.) Hills initially consented to his treatment for bipolar disorder, but after treatment began, became violent and refused medication. Hills' psychiatrist petitioned for, and the trial judge ordered, in a February 20, 1997 order, emergency treatment for ninety days. The order is premised on section 916.107, Florida Statutes (1995).

Section 916.107 provides in relevant part:

Rights of forensic clients. —

. . . .

(3) RIGHT TO EXPRESS AND INFORMED CONSENT. —

(a) A person committed to the department pursuant to this act shall be asked to give express and informed written consent for treatment.

"Express and informed consent" or "consent" means consent given voluntarily in writing after a conscientious and sufficient explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the proposed treatment, the common side effects of the treatment, if any, the expected duration of the treatment, and any alternative treatment available.

If a patient in a forensic facility refuses such treatment as is deemed necessary by the patient's multidisciplinary treatment team at the forensic facility for the appropriate care of the patient and the safety of the patient or others, such treatment may be provided under the following circumstances . . . .

(Emphasis added.) We held, in Meeker v. State, 584 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), applying section 916.107, that the evidence was not sufficient to show that a patient's "treatment team" had deemed necessary the administration of the psychotropic drug mandated by the trial court's order. The instant record, like that inMeeker, is devoid of any evidence that Hills' treatment team deemed necessary or delegated to the physician the treatment decision mandated in the order under review.

The language of subsection (3) remains the same as that interpreted in Meeker. Compare § 916.107, Fla. Stat. (1991) with § 916.107, Fla. Stat. (1995).

We therefore reverse and remand for consistent proceedings.

KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Hills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 19, 1998
706 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

holding that record was devoid of any evidence that patient's treatment team deemed necessary or delegated to the patient's psychiatrist the treatment decision

Summary of this case from Louisma v. State
Case details for

Hills v. State

Case Details

Full title:EARNEST HILLS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Feb 19, 1998

Citations

706 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Louisma v. State

Id. at 170 (emphasis added). See also Vaughn v. State, 705 So.2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that…

Dinardo v. State

On appellate review, the record must contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's…